Comparative evaluation of local infiltration of articaine, articaine plus ketorolac, and dexamethasone on anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis

Introduction

The inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) has a poor success rate in patients with irreversible pulpitis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of ketorolac and dexamethasone infiltration along with standard IANB on the success rate.

Methods

Ninety-four adult volunteers who were actively experiencing pain participated in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. All patients received standard IANB of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Twenty-four patients did not receive any supplemental infiltrations (control). Twenty-four patients received supplemental buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 ephinephrine, and 24 patients received supplemental buccal infiltration of 1 mL/4 mg of dexamethasone. It was planned to give supplemental buccal infiltration of 1 mL/30 mg of ketorolac tromethamine in 26 patients, but the first 2 patients experienced severe injection pain after ketorlac infiltration and were excluded from the study. In the subsequent patients, 0.9 mL of 4% articaine was infiltrated before injecting ketorolac. Endodontic access preparation was initiated after 15 minutes of initial IANB. Pain during treatment was recorded by using a Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Success was recorded as none or mild pain.

Results

Statistical analysis was done by using nonparametric χ² tests. Control IANB gave 39% success rate. Buccal infiltration of articaine and articaine plus ketorolac significantly increased the success rate to 54% and 62%, respectively (P < .05). Supplementary dexamethasone infiltration gave 45% success rate, which was insignificant with control IANB.

Conclusions

Articaine and ketorolac infiltration can increase the success rate of IANB in patients with irreversible pulpitis. None of the tested techniques gave 100% success rate.     

Anesthetic efficacy of 4% Articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine versus 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine as a primary buccal infiltration in the mandibular first molar

Introduction

No study has compared 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine with 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine as a primary infiltration in the mandibular first molar.

Methods

Eighty-six asymptomatic adult subjects randomly received a primary mandibular buccal first molar infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in 2 separate appointments. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar for anesthesia in 3-minute cycles for 60 minutes after the injections.

Results

The two 4% articaine formulations showed no statistically significant difference when comparing anesthetic success, onset of anesthesia, or incidence of pulpal anesthesia.

Conclusions

The anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine is comparable to 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a primary mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar.     

Anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL versus 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar

Introduction

No study has compared 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a primary infiltration in the mandibular first molar.

Methods

Eighty-six asymptomatic adult subjects randomly received a primary mandibular buccal first molar infiltration of 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in two separate appointments. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar for anesthesia in 3-minute cycles for 90 minutes after the injections.

Results

Compared with the 1.8-mL volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, the 3.6-mL volume showed a statistically higher success rate (70% vs 50%).

Conclusions

The anesthetic efficacy of 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is better than 1.8 mL of the same anesthetic solution in a primary mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. However, the success rate of 70% is not high enough to support its use as a primary injection technique in the mandibular first molar.     

Efficacy of Articaine versus Lidocaine as a Supplemental Buccal Infiltration in Mandibular Molars with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Study

Introduction

Profound pulpal anesthesia in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis (IP) is often difficult to obtain and often requires supplemental injections after an ineffective inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine with 2% lidocaine for supplemental buccal infiltrations (BIs) after an ineffective IANB in mandibular molars with IP. In addition, the use of articaine for IANB and intraosseous injections was investigated.

Methods

One hundred emergency patients diagnosed with IP of a mandibular molar were selected and received an IANB with 4% articaine. All injections were 1.7 mL with 1:100,000 epinephrine. All patients reported profound lip numbness after IANB. Patients with ineffective IANB (positive pulpal response to cold or pain on access) randomly received 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine as a supplemental BI. Endodontic access was initiated 5 minutes after deposition of the infiltration solution. Success was defined as no pain or no more than mild pain during endodontic access and instrumentation as measured on a visual analogue scale.

Results

Seventy-four patients failed to achieve pulpal anesthesia after IANB with 4% articaine, resulting in IANB success rate of 26%. Success rates for supplemental BIs were 62% for articaine and 37% for lidocaine (P < .05). This effect was most pronounced in second molars (P < .05).

Conclusions

Supplemental BI with articaine was significantly more effective than lidocaine. The IANB success rate of 4% articaine confirmed published data.     

Success Rate of 3 Injection Methods with Articaine for Mandibular First Molars with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A CONSORT Randomized Double-blind Clinical Trial

Introduction

Previous studies have reported that it is difficult to obtain proper anesthesia in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, and supplemental injections are usually unavoidable. The aim of the present study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of articaine in mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis with 3 injection methods: an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), an IANB with an intraligamentary injection, and an IANB with buccal infiltration before initiating the endodontic treatment.

Anesthetic efficacy of articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic versus asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis

This study sought to determine the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth and if individual patient factors, pulpal disease characteristics, and previous medication are correlated to local anesthetic success. A second objective was to determine the specificity and sensibility of a cold test for prediction of anesthetic success prior to endodontic treatment. Seventy patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth received 1.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using a metal guide. The anesthetic solution was injected with a computer-preprogrammed delivery system for local anesthesia. Endodontic access was begun 15 minutes after solution deposition; later, patients rated their discomfort using the visual analog scale (VAS). The success rate for the IA NB using articaine was 64.2% in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and 86.9% in patients with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Cold test prior to root canal treatment had a specificity and sensibility of 12.5% and 87.1%, respectively. The anesthetic efficacy of articaine in irreversible pulpitis is moderately acceptable, and anesthetic success increases when the patient has been premedicated with NSAIDs. The cold test appears to be a favorable indicator for predicting anesthetic success.     

Anesthetic Efficacy of 4 % Articaine During Extraction of the Mandibular Posterior Teeth by Using Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block and Buccal Infiltration Techniques

Introduction

The study was designed to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 4 % articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) in infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) anesthetic techniques for the pain control during extraction of the mandibular posterior teeth.

Methods

This prospective randomized single-blind clinical trial included 100 patients needing extraction of at least two mandibular molars. Patients received either infiltration in the buccal vestibule opposite to the first molar supplemented with lingual infiltration or standard IANB with A100. For assessment of depth of anesthesia obtained by the two anaethetic techniques, presence or absence of pain during the extraction were rated using the visual analog scale.

Results

Fifty patients received infiltration anesthesia and fifty patients were anesthetized by IANB. The success rate of pain-free extraction after buccal infiltration was 94 %, whereas by using IANB with the same anesthetic it was 92 %. No statistical differences were detected in the success rates between the two anesthetic techniques (P = 0.15).

Conclusions

Buccal Infiltration can be considered a good option during extraction of the mandibular molar and premolar teeth of course, with supplemental lingual anesthesia.

     

Anesthetic Efficacy of a Combination of 4% Prilocaine/2% Lidocaine with Epinephrine for the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block: A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Study

Introduction

Prilocaine plain has a high pH and concentration (4%), which could decrease the pain of injection and increase success. The purpose of this study was to compare pain associated with anesthetic solution deposition and the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with the combination of prilocaine and lidocaine versus a lidocaine and lidocaine combination when used for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs).

Anesthetic Comparisons of 4% Concentrations of Articaine,Lidocaine, and Prilocaine as Primary Buccal Infiltrations of the Mandibular First Molar: A Prospective Randomized,Double-blind Study

Introduction

Studies have shown the superiority of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine over 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar. A study using other 4% anesthetic formulations may help determine the role of concentration in the increased efficacy of 4% articaine. The authors conducted a prospective randomized, double-blind, crossover study comparing the pulpal anesthesia obtained with 4% concentrations of articaine, lidocaine, and prilocaine formulations as primary buccal infiltrations of the mandibular first molar.

Methods

Sixty asymptomatic adult subjects randomly received a primary mandibular buccal first molar infiltration of 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in 3 separate appointments. An electric pulp tester was used to test the first molar for anesthesia in 3-minute cycles for 60 minutes after the infiltrations. Successful anesthesia was defined as 2 consecutive 80/80 readings.

Results

The success rate for the 4% articaine formulation was 55%, 33% for the 4% lidocaine formulation, and 32% for the 4% prilocaine formulation. There was a significant difference between articaine and both lidocaine (P = .0071) and prilocaine (P = .0187) formulations.

Conclusions

A 4% articaine formulation was statistically better than both 4% lidocaine and 4% prilocaine formulations for buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar in asymptomatic mandibular first molars. However, the success rate of 55% is not high enough to support its use as a primary buccal infiltration technique in the mandibular first molar.     

Efficacy of Articaine versus Lidocaine in Supplemental Infiltration for Mandibular First versus Second Molars with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Clinical Trial

Introduction

Profound pulpal anesthesia is difficult to achieve in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis (IP). However, there are no published randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the success of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) in mandibular first versus second molars with IP. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine with 2% lidocaine for supplemental BIs in mandibular first versus second molars with IP after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). This study's sample was combined with data from a previous trial.

Anesthetic Efficacy of Gow-Gates Nerve Block,Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block,and Their Combination in Mandibular Molars with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective,Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction

The purpose of this prospective, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the Gow-Gates nerve block (GGNB), the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), and their combination for mandibular molars in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Effect of combination of preoperative ibuprofen/acetaminophen on the success of the inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis

Introduction

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to determine the effect of the administration of the combination of preoperative ibuprofen/acetaminophen on the success of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Methods

One hundred endodontic emergency patients in moderate to severe pain diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth randomly received, in a double-blind manner, identical capsules of either a combination of 800 mg ibuprofen and 1000 mg acetaminophen or placebo 45 minutes before the administration of a conventional IAN block. Access was begun 15 minutes after completion of the IAN block, and all patients had profound lip numbness. Success was defined as no or mild pain (visual analog scale recordings) on access or initial instrumentation.

Results and Conclusions

The success rate for the IAN block was 32% for the combination ibuprofen/acetaminophen group and 24% for the placebo, with no significant difference (P = .37) between the 2 groups. For mandibular posterior teeth, a combination dose of 800 mg ibuprofen and 1000 mg acetaminophen given 45 minutes before administration of the IAN block did not result in a statistically significant increase in anesthetic success in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.     

A Prospective,Randomized Single-blind Evaluation of Effect of Injection Speed on Anesthetic Efficacy of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis

Introduction

Speed of injection may affect the solution spread in the pterygomandibular space. It was hypothesized that speed of injection will affect the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Methods

Fifty-nine adult volunteers who were actively experiencing pain participated in this prospective, randomized, single-blind study. The patients were divided into 2 groups on a random basis and received either slow or rapid IANB with 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Endodontic access preparation was initiated after 15 minutes of the initial IANB. Pain during treatment was recorded by using the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale. The primary outcome measure, and the definition of success, was the ability to undertake pulp access and canal instrumentation with no or mild pain (Heft-Parker visual analog scale score < 55 mm). Secondary outcome measure was the solution deposition pain. Statistical analysis was performed by using Mann-Whitney U test and χ² test.

Results

Slow and rapid injections gave 43% and 51% success rates, respectively. The difference was statistically insignificant. Slow injections produced less solution deposition pain than rapid injections.

Conclusions

Rate of injection has no effect on anesthetic success of IANB, but slow injections were more comfortable than rapid injections.     

Anesthetic Efficacy of Supplemental Buccal and Lingual Infiltrations of Articaine and Lidocaine after an Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis

IntroductionThe success rate of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) decreases in patients with irreversible pulpitis. It was hypothesized that supplemental infiltration of lidocaine and articaine may improve the success rates.MethodsEighty-four adult volunteers, actively experiencing pain, participated in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. All patients received standard IANB of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Twenty-four patients did not receive supplemental infiltrations (control). Thirty patients received supplemental buccal and lingual infiltrations of 2% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 30 patients received buccal and lingual infiltrations of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine at 2 minutes after the IANB. Endodontic access preparation was initiated after 15 minutes of initial IANB. Pain during treatment was recorded by using a Heft Parker visual analog scale. Success was recorded as “none” or “mild” pain.ResultsStatistical analysis using nonparametric McNemer tests showed that supplemental buccal and lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine or 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine improved the success rate from 33% to 47% and 67%, respectively. Also the success rate with 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine was significantly more than 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (p < 0.05).ConclusionsAlthough supplemental buccal and lingual infiltrations of 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine increased the success rate of the inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis, none of the techniques provided acceptable success rates.     

A prospective, randomized single-blind study of the anesthetic efficacy of frequency-dependent conduction blockade of the inferior alveolar nerve

Introduction

The purpose of this prospective, randomized single-blind study was to evaluate the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with frequency-dependent conduction blockade of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN).

Methods

Eighty adult volunteers randomly received two IAN blocks: an IAN block followed by continuous electrical stimulation for 3 minutes of the first molar or lateral incisor for six cycles over a time period of 64 minutes; an IAN block followed by mock electrical stimulation using the same cycles. The IAN blocks were administered at two separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart in a crossover design. An electric pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia of the first molar and lateral incisor. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 minutes, and the 80 reading was recorded through the 60th minute.

Results

The anesthetic success rate for the stimulated IAN block was 35% and 48% for the lateral incisor and first molar, respectively. For the mock stimulated IAN, success was 18% for the lateral incisor and 62% for the first molar. There was no significant difference between the two IAN block techniques.

Conclusions

We concluded that the stimulation of nerves in the presence of local anesthesia (frequency-dependent nerve block) did not statistically increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia for an IAN block.     

Efficacy of Articaine Versus Lidocaine Administered as Supplementary Intraligamentary Injection after a Failed Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block: A Randomized Double-blind Study

Introduction

The present study comparatively evaluated the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine given as supplemental intraligamentary injections after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block.

Anesthetic efficacy of articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with irreversible pulpitis

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth. Seventy-two emergency patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth randomly received, in a double-blind manner, 2.2 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2.2 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine using a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block. Endodontic access was begun 15 min after solution deposition, and all patients were required to have profound lip numbness. Success was defined as none or mild pain (Visual Analogue Scale recordings) on endodontic access or initial instrumentation. The success rate for the inferior alveolar nerve block using articaine was 24% and for the lidocaine solution success was 23%. There was no significant difference (p = 0.89) between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. Neither solution resulted in an acceptable rate of anesthetic success in patients with irreversible pulpitis.     

Effect of a Combination of Nitrous Oxide and Intraligamentary Injection on the Success of the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis

IntroductionThe purpose of this prospective study was to determine the effect of a combination of nitrous oxide/oxygen and 1 set of supplemental intraligamentary/periodontal ligament (PDL) injections followed by a second set of PDL injections on anesthetic success in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP).MethodsNinety-four patients with a mandibular posterior tooth diagnosed with SIP received nitrous oxide/oxygen and an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Patients rated the pain of PDL injections and endodontic access on a visual analog scale. If moderate to severe pain was felt during treatment, the operator administered 1 set of supplemental PDL injections with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. If moderate to severe pain was felt again during treatment, the operator administered a second set of supplemental PDL injections. Anesthetic success was defined as having no to mild pain during endodontic treatment.ResultsThe success of the IANB with nitrous oxide was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34%–54%). The overall anesthetic success rate (IANB with PDL injections) was increased from 69% (95% CI, 60%–78%) with 1 set of PDL injections to 80% (95% CI, 72%–88%) with a second set of PDL injections.ConclusionsAlthough the second set of PDL injections increased anesthetic success, it was not sufficient to ensure complete pulpal anesthesia.     

Comparison of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used as a supplemental anesthetic

A randomized, double-blind trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used as a supplemental anesthetic. Forty-eight patients with irreversible pulpitis requiring supplemental buccal infiltration for endodontic therapy were given either 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a double-blind manner. A standard VAS pain scale was used to evaluate the patient's response to pain after a supplemental injection. The mean VAS score after supplemental anesthesia was 15.28 for 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 19.70 for 2% lidocaine with 1:00,000 epinephrine. The mean percentage change in VAS score was 70.5 and 62.2% for articaine and lidocaine, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the VAS pain score between 4% articaine with 1:00,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:00,000 epinephrine as a supplemental anesthetic.     

Expansive nasopalatine duct cysts with nasal involvement mimicking apical lesions of endodontic origin: a report of two cases

Introduction

The nasopalatine duct cyst (NPDC) is the most frequent nonodontogenic cyst of the jaws and can be misinterpreted as an apical lesion of endodontic origin.

Methods

In the first case, a 17-year-old male patient was referred because of a pressure sensation in the anterior maxilla. The teeth #7, #8, #10, and #11 responded to cold sensitivity testing, and on tooth #9 an endodontic treatment had been performed 3 years ago. Only periapical radiographs had been taken, and a radicular cyst was suspected. In the second case, a 42-year-old man reported inconvenience wearing his upper removable partial denture. Suspecting a jaw cyst in the anterior maxilla, the general dental practitioner referred the patient.

Results

Limited cone-beam computed tomography scans visualized the expansion of the cysts and the involvement of the neighboring structures in both cases. In both patients, the NPDCs were treated first by marsupialization in local anesthesia and second with cystectomy in general anesthesia with reconstruction of the defect areas with bone gained from the iliac crest. The final diagnosis was achieved by histopathological examination.

Conclusions

If not diagnosed early, the NPDC can expand through the palatal and/or buccal cortical wall and also into the nasal cavity. The more expansive the NPDC is becoming, the more complex the final diagnosis is and the subsequent surgical therapy.